DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Action on the Merits for U.S. Patent Application No. 18/143,856, filed 5 May 2023, which is a continuation of International Application No. PCT/EP2021/075857, filed 21 September 2021, which claims foreign priority to German Application No. DE102020129241.4, filed 6 November 2020.
Claims 1–10 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Requirement for Information – 37 C.F.R. § 1.105
The following is a quotation of the appropriate sections of 37 C.F.R. § 1.105(a)(1) that form the basis for the Requirement for Information under this section made in this Office action:
In the course of examining or treating a matter in a pending or abandoned application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111 or 371 (including a reissue application), in a patent, or in a reexamination proceeding, the examiner or other Office employee may require the submission, from individuals identified under § 1.56(c), or any assignee, of such information as may be reasonably necessary to properly examine or treat the matter, for example:
(iv) Information used to draft application: A copy of any non-patent literature, published application, or patent (U.S. or foreign) that was used to draft the application.
(v) Information used in invention process: A copy of any non-patent literature, published application, or patent (U.S. or foreign) that was used in the invention process, such as by designing around or providing a solution to accomplish an invention result.
(viii) Technical information known to applicant. Technical information known to application concerning the related art, the disclosure, the claimed subject matter, other factual information pertinent to patentability, or concerning the accuracy of the examiner’s stated interpretation of such items.
Applicant and the assignee of this application are required under 37 C.F.R. § 1.105 to provide the following information that the examiner has determined is reasonably necessary to the examination of this application.
The information is required to enter in the record the art suggested by the applicant as relevant to this examination to define the claim term “approximately collimated light beam”.
In response to this requirement, please provide a copy of the following item of art referred to in the specification: any documentation for a light-control film or collimator film from Falcon Illumination MV GmbH& Co. KG that indicates to what degree it transmits and aligns light so that it is “approximately parallel” or “approximately collimated” as given in paragraph 00016 of the specification.
In responding to those requirements that require copies of documents, where the document is a bound text or a single article over 50 pages, the requirement may be met by providing copies of those pages that provide the particular subject matter indicated in the requirement, or where such subject matter is not indicated, the subject matter found in applicant’s disclosure.
The fee and certification requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97 are waived for those documents submitted in reply to this requirement. This waiver extends only to those documents within the scope of this requirement under 37 C.F.R. § 1.105 that are included in the applicant’s first complete communication responding to this requirement. Any supplemental replies subsequent to the first communication responding to this requirement and any information disclosures beyond the scope of this requirement under 37 C.F.R. § 1.105 are subject to the fee and certification requirements of 37 C.F.R. § 1.97.
The applicant is reminded that the reply to this requirement must be made with candor and good faith under 37 C.F.R. § 1.56. Where the applicant does not have or cannot readily obtain an item of required information, a statement that the item is unknown or cannot be readily obtained may be accepted as a complete reply to the requirement for that item.
This requirement is an attachment of the enclosed Office action. A complete reply to the enclosed Office action must include a complete reply to this requirement. The time period for reply to this requirement coincides with the time period for reply to the enclosed Office action.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code in paragraph 0006. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See M.P.E.P. § 608.01.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4–6, and 9 are objected to for want of conformity to 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(i), which requires each element or step to be separated by a line indentation. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The term “approximately” is a relative term that renders the claims indefinite. So, how nearly collimated or almost collimated does a light beam need to be before it can be approximately collimated? From the specification, it appears the closest Applicant gives to a definition is that the collimator may be implemented by light-control film or collimator film produced by Falcon Illumination MV GmbH & Co. KG. Specification ¶ 00016. However, this is presented as an example, not a definition, and the documentation for this product needs to be present to make the record complete. Claim 6 further includes “approximately plane waves”, without a standard of allowed deviance or toleration to planarity.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. § 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by CN 110196420 A (“Zhang”)1. The translation provided by Applicant in the record is relied on.
Zhang, directed to Lidar testing, teaches with respect to claim 1 a test bench for stimulating a photodetector, the test bench comprising:
a light signal device that comprises a planar arrangement of lighting elements that are adapted to be activated and deactivated independently of each other (¶ 0131, laser signal split into four paths that may be each adjusted through attenuator 32) and
that is designed to emit, in an at least approximately [sic] collimated light beam, light emitted by at least one of the lighting elements (id., “the output is collimated by the optical fiber output lens”);
a converging lens positioned to focus light beams emitted by the light signal device at an accumulation point (id., second vertical cylindrical lens 25 and second horizontal cylindrical lens 26 reconverge the laser); and
a retaining device for a photodetector, the retaining device being arranged at the accumulation point (id., various components arranged “to ensure that each output light corresponds to a channel in the corresponding four-channel detector”),
via which retaining device a photodetector is adapted to be placed at the accumulation point (id.)
such that a first light beam produced by any first lighting element and a second light beam produced by any second lighting element hit the photodetector at different spatial angles with respect to an optical axis of the text bench (Fig. 5a, light received on photodetector at different angles from different channels).
Regarding claim 2, Zhang teaches the test bench according to claim 1, wherein the light signal device comprises a planar arrangement of point light sources, which are activated and deactivated independently (¶ 0131, Fig. 5a; parallel laser beams controlled by attenuator 32),
wherein the light signal device comprises a transparent collimator surface arranged between the planar arrangement and the converging lens, which is designed to absorb or reflect light incident on the collimator surface at a sufficiently acute angle (id., collimating output lens 24).
Regarding claim 4, Zhang teaches the test bench according to claim 2, wherein the planar arrangement of point light sources includes a backlight (¶ 0131, optical fiber transmitting laser beam) and
a screen arranged between the backlight and the collimator surface, which is divided into a plurality of controllable cells, each of which are adapted to be adapted to be set into a transparent or non-transparent state by controlling the respective cell (id., attenuator).
Regarding claim 5, Zhang teaches the test bench according to claim 1, wherein the light signal device is designed as a planar arrangement of collimated light sources or semiconductor lasers (Fig. 5a, ¶ 0131; four co-linear, parallel collimated laser beams),
wherein the lighting elements are provided with collimator lenses (¶ 0131, optical fiber output lens 24 collimates the laser beams) or the lighting elements are provided with concave mirrors ,
each of which, upon activation of the respective light source, directly emits an at least approximately [sic] collimated light beam (id., Fig. 5a; output of collimated laser beams in response to attenuator 32).
Regarding claim 7, Zhang teaches the test bench according to claim 1, further comprising a programmable control device configured to control the light signal device (¶ 0123, main control unit 1)
in order to activate or deactivate selected lighting elements on the light signal device according to the specifications of a control program programmed on the control device, in order to produce a static or dynamic light pattern on the light signal device (id., main control unit 1 controls optical adjustable attenuator 32).
Regarding claim 8, Zhang teaches the test bench according to claim 7, wherein the control program comprises a simulation of the refractive behavior of the converging lens in order to take the refractive behavior into account when generating the light pattern (Fig. 5a, device including converging lenses 25 and 26 work properly to focus the laser beams on the photodetectors).
Regarding claim 9, Zhang teaches the test bench according to claim 7, wherein the test bench is adapted for target simulation for an active environmental sensor system or a lidar system (¶ 0123, echo simulation)
comprising a detector for detecting the emission of a light signal by the environmental sensor system (¶ 0133, photodetector 8), and
wherein the control program determines round-trip times and spatial angles of reflections of the light signal on virtual objects (¶ 0123, simulated targets) and
controls the light signal device to produce a light pattern for simulating the reflections according to a specification of determined spatial angles and round-trip times for a photodetector of the environmental sensor system arranged in the retaining device (¶ 0041, echo simulation parameters of the simulated target).
Regarding claim 10, Zhang teaches a method for stimulating a photodetector of an environmental sensor system for testing the environmental sensor system, the method comprising:
arranging a light signal device, which comprises a planar arrangement of lighting elements that activate and deactivate independently of each other (¶ 0131, laser signal split into four paths that may be each adjusted through attenuator 32) and
which is designed to emit light emitted by any lighting element in an at least approximately [sic] collimated light beam (id., “the output is collimated by the optical fiber output lens”);
arranging the photodetector at the accumulation point (id., various components arranged “to ensure that each output light corresponds to a channel in the corresponding four-channel detector”),
specifying a number of spatial angles from a spectrum of spatial angles covering in its entirety a field of view of the photodetector wherein each spatial angle from the number of spatial angles corresponds to a direction of a simulated virtual object in the field of view of the photodetector (¶ 0123, horizontal orientation of simulated target); and
emitting the at least two light beams corresponding to the number of spatial angles via the light signal device (¶ 0131, transmitting four light beams),
the at least two light beams being focused by the converging lens in such a way that each light beam hits the photodetector at exactly one spatial angle from the number of spatial angles with respect to an optical axis (id., each output light corresponds to a channel in the four-channel detector).
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Y. Gao, L. Zhou, X. Wang, H. Yan, K. Hao, S. Yang, & Z. Li, “A Programmable All-Optical Delay Array for Light Detection and Ranging Scene Generation”, 7 IEEE Access 93,489–500 (29 July 2019) (“Gao”)2.
Claims 3 and 6 are directed to details of the apparatus not taught by Zhang.
Specifically with respect to claim 3, Zhang does not teach a set of separate light sources, instead using a single light source that may be selectively attenuated in different channels. However, Zhang, directed to Lidar simulation and testing, teaches with respect to claim 3:
The test bench according to claim 2, wherein the planar arrangement of point light sources is designed as a planar arrangement of discrete and self-luminous light sources, in particular photodiodes (Zhang Fig. 4, p. 93,490; laser array).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify Zhang to use an array of separate light sources instead of a single light source, in order to upscale the simulation to a larger array of a simulated scene. Gao p. 93,490. It is noted that Gao teaches away from a full array of 1024 lasers if cost is an issue. The reliance on Gao will be vacated should Applicant show that either Zhang, or the specification of the present invention as originally filed, is designed to be low-cost.
Regarding claim 6, Zhang in view of Gao teaches the test bench according to claim 1, wherein the light signal device is designed to emit light emitted by any lighting element in an only approximately collimated cone-shaped light beam (Gao Fig. 11, output of output lens array from spatial light modulator), and
wherein the converging lens is designed with regard to its focal length to convert the cone-shaped light beams in their refraction into at least approximately plane waves (id., output through focus lens as plane).
Conclusion
This Office action has an attached requirement for information under 37 C.F.R. § 1.105. A complete reply to this Office action must include a complete reply to the attached requirement for information. The time period for reply to the attached requirement coincides with the time period for reply to this Office action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following prior art was found using an Artificial Intelligence assisted search using an internal AI tool that uses the classification of the application under the Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) system, as well as from the specification, including the claims and abstract, of the application as contextual information. The documents are ranked from most to least relevant. Where possible, English-language equivalents are given, and redundant results within the same patent families are eliminated. See “New Artificial Intelligence Functionality in PE2E Search”, 1504 OG 359 (15 November 2022), “Automated Search Pilot Program”, 90 F.R. 48,161 (8 October 2025).
US 2019/0025418 A1
US 2022/0299608 A1
US 5,541,730 A
US 2019/0250255 A1
US 2008/0243426 A1
US 2017/0363448 A1
WO 2021/073824 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David N Werner whose telephone number is (571)272-9662. The examiner can normally be reached M--F 7:30--4:00 Central.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dave Czekaj can be reached at 571.272.7327. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/David N Werner/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2487
1 This reference was cited in the International Search Report for corresponding application PCT/EP2021/075857 and was listed in the 14 September 2023 Information Disclosure Statement.
2 This reference was cited in the International Search Report for corresponding application PCT/EP2021/075857 and was listed in the 14 September 2023 Information Disclosure Statement.